On Friday 10 February 2006 10:38, jerome lacoste wrote:> On 2/10/06, Joerg Schilling <schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:> > "D. Hazelton" <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:> > > And does cdrecord even need libscg anymore? From having actually gone> > > through your code, Joerg, I can tell you that it does serve a larger> > > purpose. But at this point I have to ask - besides cdrecord and a few> > > other _COMPACT_ _DISC_ writing programs, does _ANYONE_ use libscg? Is> > > it ever used to access any other devices that are either SCSI or use a> > > SCSI command protocol (like ATAPI)? My point there is that you have a> > > wonderful library, but despite your wishes, there is no proof that it> > > is ever used for anything except writing/ripping CD's.> >> > Name a single program (not using libscg) that implements user space SCSI> > and runs on as many platforms as cdrecord/libscg does.>> I have 2 technical questions, and I hope that you will take the time> to answer them.>> 1) extract from the README of the latest stable cdrtools package:>> Linux driver design oddities> ****************************************** Although cdrecord supports to> use dev=/dev/sgc, it is not recommended and it is unsupported.>> The /dev/sg* device mapping in Linux is not stable! Using> dev=/dev/sgc in a shell script may fail after a reboot because the device> you want to talk to has moved to /dev/sgd. For the proper and OS> independent dev=<bus>,<tgt>,<lun> syntax read the man page of cdrecord.>> My understanding of that is you say to not use dev=/dev/sgc because it> isn't stable. Now that you've said that bus,tgt,lun is not stable on> Linux (because of a "Linux bug") why is the b,t,l scheme preferred> over the /dev/sg* one ?

Excellent question. Well Joerg, can you give us a good answer, or will it be more finger pointing, mud slinging and FUD ?

>> 2) design question:>> - cdrecord scans then maps the device to the b,t,l scheme.> - the libsg uses the b,t,l ids in its interface to perform the operations>> So now, if cdrecord could have a new option called -scanbusmap that> displays the mapping it performs in a way that people can parse the> output, I think that will solve most issues.

I'm wondering this myself. If Joerg didn't seem to think everyone in the world was an idiot I'd attempt this myself and submit it.